DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment filed 02/23/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 22-24 are new. Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12, 14-19, and 21-24 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 21 reciting "interface is configured to receive the updated RF network design utilizing the at least one additional RF transmission site having the site score that is between the first threshold and the second threshold from the processor" is interpreted as not invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 as per MPEP 2181 Identifying and Interpreting a 35 U.S.C. 112(f): '… Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp… (holding that the claim terms… "computing unit" when read in light of the specification connoted sufficient, definite structure to one of skill in the art to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph)…'. Examiner notes that the specification reads: "[0091]… processing system 800 includes… an interface 830… [0095] The interface 830 allows communication to the processing system 800, and can be implemented using any suitable method and apparatus".
Claim Objections
Claim 14, line 4 includes the typo “anda”. Examiner interprets as “and a" for examination purposes.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, line(s) 4-9, it is unclear what the cited "storing, by the non-transitory data storage, RF propagation and site infrastructure data for each of a plurality of candidate RF transmission sites in a site qualification database… from the site qualification database stored by the non-transitory data storage" represents. The subject matter description of “storing, by the non-transitory data storage, RF propagation and site infrastructure data for each of a plurality of candidate RF transmission sites in a site qualification database… from the site qualification database stored by the non-transitory data storage” in the specification is non-existent. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the specification is mute about "non-transitory" and "data storage". While computer devices (e.g. a processor, a disc drive device) execute instructions to store data organized in a database in data storage, non-transitory data storage cannot execute any instructions ('storing, by the non-transitory data storage') to store data organized in a database. The Specification corroborates Examiner’s position, it reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0095]… Storage device 890 can be any suitable type of storage apparatus, including direct access storage devices such as hard disk drives, flash drives, non-volatile memory cards and optical disk drives. As shown in FIG. 8, storage device 890 can comprise a disc drive device that uses discs 895 to store data, but again, this is just one example'.
As to claim 22, it is objected for a similarly deficiency.
As to claim 22, line(s) 24, it is unclear what the cited "and being" represents. The limitation “and being" is dangling or disconnected from the claims.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12, 14-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: an automated process (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
automatically analyzing, by a site viability engine executed by the processor, the RF propagation and site infrastructure data to generate a plurality of site scores, each of the plurality of site scores providing a viability metric for a corresponding one of the plurality of candidate RF transmission sites; rating, by the processor, each of the plurality of candidate RF transmission sites based at least in part on the site score corresponding to that candidate RF transmission site
… selecting candidate RF transmission sites corresponding to site scores that are beyond a first threshold; identifying at least one area in the generated RF network design with insufficient RF coverage; and identifying at least one additional candidate RF transmission site in the site qualification database having a site score that is between the first threshold and a second threshold and being located in the at least one area having insufficient RF coverage
The limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”. These limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer components nothing claimed precludes these limitations from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim language encompasses a user simply analyzing data to generate scores; rating RF transmission sites based on scores; selecting candidates; identifying areas; identifying RF transmission site (data processing) in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites mental processes.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong two: The claim recites the additional elements "a computer system having a processor and a non-transitory data storage… storing, by the non-transitory data storage, RF propagation and site infrastructure data for each of a plurality of candidate RF transmission sites in a site qualification database… from the site qualification database stored by the non-transitory data storage", they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer.
As to the limitations “to build a radio frequency (RF) network", they are no more than intended use.
As to the limitations “obtaining, by the processor, the RF propagation and site infrastructure data for each of the plurality of candidate RF transmission sites”, these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. As to the limitations “outputting… the updated RF network design utilizing the at least one additional candidate RF transmission site to thereby provide a configuration of the RF network having improved RF coverage in comparison to a prior configuration of the RF network”, they are considered generic displaying. Examiner notes that the specification is mute about "output of the computer system". As to the limitations “to thereby provide a configuration of the RF network having improved RF coverage in comparison to a prior configuration of the RF network", Examiner notes that no actual build of a RF network is ever performed in the body of the claim. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B below). Data gathering and displaying have not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. They are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations "via a user interface of the computer system", a GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
As to the limitations "performing an RF analysis by an RF analysis module executed by the processor to generate an electronic RF network design utilizing the rating of each of the plurality of candidate RF transmission sites" and “performing, by the RF analysis module executed by the processor, a second RF analysis to generate an updated RF network design utilizing the at least one additional candidate RF transmission site having a site score that is between the first threshold and the second threshold”, the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites the additional elements "a computer system having a processor and a non-transitory data storage… storing, by the non-transitory data storage, RF propagation and site infrastructure data for each of a plurality of candidate RF transmission sites in a site qualification database… from the site qualification database stored by the non-transitory data storage". As to the limitations “storing, by the non-transitory data storage, RF propagation and site infrastructure data for each of a plurality of candidate RF transmission sites in a site qualification database… from the site qualification database stored by the non-transitory data storage", see 112 Rejection above. They are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with computers. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The use of computers to implement the abstract idea of a mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The computer implementation is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
‘[0058]… A variety of suitable processing systems can be used to implement the site qualification database, including typical commercially available computing systems and database software products… [0091]… Processing system 800 illustrates the general features of a processing system that can be used to implement… Of course, these features are merely exemplary, and it should be understood that the invention can be implemented using different types of hardware… the processing system 800 can be implemented in many different environments, such as part of large networked computer system that spans multiple sites or as discrete individual computer system. The exemplary processing system 800 includes a processor 810, an interface 830, a storage device 890, a bus 870 and a memory 880… memory 880 includes at least a site qualification database, a site viability analysis program and an RF analysis program… [0092]… processor 810 may comprise any type of processor… [0095] The interface 830 allows communication to the processing system 800, and can be implemented using any suitable method and apparatus… Storage device 890 can be any suitable type of storage apparatus’.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations “to build a radio frequency (RF) network", are no more than intended use, because no actual build of a RF network is ever performed in the body of the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim 1 recites data gathering and displaying, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the GUI limitations have been found by the courts as not adding an inventive component/concept to claims to render them patentable. The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
"[0091]… processing system 800 includes… an interface 830… [0095] The interface 830 allows communication to the processing system 800, and can be implemented using any suitable method and apparatus".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0035]… RF analysis module 110 performs an RF analysis to generate an RF network design… [0074]… performed by an RF network design program (e.g., RF analysis module 110)“.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of additional elements improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claim 14, Step 1: a computing system (system = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 14, Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
the site viability program configured to analyze, using the processor, the RF propagation and site infrastructure data in the site qualification database to generate a plurality of site scores, each of the plurality of site scores providing a viability metric for a corresponding one of the plurality of candidate RF transmission sites, the site viability program further configured to rate each of the plurality of RF transmission sites based at least in part on its associated one of the plurality of site scores…
the RF analysis program further configured to identify at least one area in the generated electronic RF network design with insufficient RF coverage; and wherein the site viability program is further configured to instruct the processor to identify at least one additional candidate RF transmission site in the site qualification database that is associated with an associated site score that is between the first threshold and a second threshold and that is located within the at least one area having insufficient RF coverage
The limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 14, Step 2A Prong two: The claim recites the additional elements "a computing system comprising a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, a program residing in the memory and being executed by the processor, and a site qualification database stored by the memory, the site qualification database including RF propagation and site infrastructure data for each of a plurality of candidate RF transmission sites associated with the RF network"; they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer.
As to the limitations “to build a radio frequency (RF) network", they are no more than intended use.
As to the limitations “provide the updated RF network design as an output of the computing system to thereby provide a configuration of the RF network having improved RF coverage in comparison to a prior configuration of the RF network”, they are considered generic displaying. Examiner notes that the specification is mute about "output of the computing system". (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong two above). As to the limitations “to thereby provide a configuration of the RF network having improved RF coverage in comparison to a prior configuration of the RF network", Examiner notes that no actual build of a RF network is ever performed in the body of the claim. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As to the limitations "wherein the program further comprises a user interface", a GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
As to the limitations "an RF analysis program, the RF analysis program configured to instruct the processor to automatically generate an electronic RF network design of the RF network that prioritizes one or more of the candidate RF transmission sites associated with site scores that are beyond a first threshold" and “wherein the RF analysis program is further configured to instruct the processor to perform a second RF analysis to generate an updated RF network design utilizing the at least one additional candidate RF transmission site having the associated site score that is between the first threshold and the second threshold”, the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 14, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites the additional elements "a computing system comprising a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, a program residing in the memory and being executed by the processor, and a site qualification database stored by the memory, the site qualification database including RF propagation and site infrastructure data for each of a plurality of candidate RF transmission sites associated with the RF network"; they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. They are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations “to build a radio frequency (RF) network", are no more than intended use, because no actual build of a RF network is ever performed in the body of the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim 14 recites displaying, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the GUI limitations have been found by the courts as not adding an inventive component/concept to claims to render them patentable. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of additional elements improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claim 22, Step 1: an automated process (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 22, Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
automatically analyzing, by a site viability engine executed by the processor, the RF propagation and site infrastructure data for each of the candidate RF transmission sites in a geographic area to generate a plurality of site scores, each of the plurality of site scores providing a viability metric for an associated one of the plurality of candidate RF transmission sites; rating, by the processor, each of the plurality of candidate RF transmission sites based at least in part on the site score associated with that candidate RF transmission site;
… selecting candidate RF transmission sites corresponding to site scores that are beyond a first threshold; identifying at least one area in the generated RF network design with insufficient RF coverage; and identifying at least one additional candidate RF transmission site in the site qualification database that is located in the at least one area having insufficient RF coverage and having an associated site score that is between the first threshold and a second threshold and being
The limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 22, Step 2A Prong two: The claim recites the additional elements a computer system having a processor and a non-transitory data storage, the automated process comprising: maintaining a site qualification database stored by the non-transitory data storage, the site qualification database storing RF propagation and site infrastructure data for each of a plurality of candidate RF transmission sites; they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer.
As to the limitations “to build a radio frequency (RF) network", they are no more than intended use.
As to the limitations “outputting… the updated RF network design utilizing the at least one additional candidate RF transmission site”, they are considered generic displaying. Examiner notes that the specification is mute about "output of the computer system". (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong two above).
As to the limitations "via a user interface of the computer system", a GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
As to the limitations "performing an RF analysis by an RF analysis module executed by the processor to generate an electronic RF network design utilizing the rating of each of the plurality of candidate RF transmission sites" and “performing, by the RF analysis module executed by the processor, a second RF analysis to generate an updated RF network design utilizing the at least one additional candidate RF transmission site having the associated site score that is between the first threshold and the second threshold”, the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 22, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites the additional elements "a computer system having a processor and a non-transitory data storage, the automated process comprising: maintaining a site qualification database stored by the non-transitory data storage, the site qualification database storing RF propagation and site infrastructure data for each of a plurality of candidate RF transmission sites", they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. They are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above). As to the limitations “maintaining a site qualification database stored by the non-transitory data storage", see in the specification (underline emphasis added):
‘[00100]… processor devices can carry out the described operations, tasks, and functions by manipulating electrical signals representing data bits at memory locations in the system memory, as well as other processing of signals. The memory locations where data bits are maintained are physical locations that have particular electrical, magnetic, optical, or organic properties corresponding to the data bits'.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations “to build a radio frequency (RF) network", are no more than intended use, because no actual build of a RF network is ever performed in the body of the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim 22 recites displaying, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the GUI limitations have been found by the courts as not adding an inventive component/concept to claims to render them patentable. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of additional elements improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 10, 19, Step 2A, Prong One: The limitations are substantially drawn to mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components: mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and calculations. The claimed “10/19… differentially weighing different data types”, under their broadest reasonable interpretations (see in the specification ¶¶ [0037], [0060]), are mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "(a) Mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (a) Mathematical concepts).
The rest of the dependent claims, Step 2A, Prong One: Their claim limitations further the mental concepts of their independent claim. The claim language encompasses a user simply analyzing data. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Dependent claims, Step 2A Prong Two: The additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to the limitations “17… perform a third RF analysis to generate an updated RF network design utilizing the at least one additional candidate RF transmission site not in the site qualification database”, the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations "21… the user interface is configured to receive the updated RF network design utilizing the at least one additional candidate RF transmission site having the associated site score that is between the first threshold and the second threshold from the processor", they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer.
As to the limitations “21… to provide the updated RF network design as the output of the computing system”, they are considered generic displaying. Examiner notes that the specification is mute about "output of the computing system". (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong two above).
As to the limitations “23… wherein the updated RF network design improves the RF coverage of the RF network in comparison to a prior configuration of the RF network”, they are considered generic displaying (following the "outputting" of independent claim 22). Examiner notes that the specification is mute about "output of the computing system". (See Independent claim 22, Step 2A Prong two above). As to the limitations “improves the RF coverage of the RF network in comparison to a prior configuration of the RF network", Examiner notes that no actual build of a RF network is ever performed in the body of the claim. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As to the limitations "24… activating the at least one additional candidate RF transmission site having the associated site score that is between the first threshold and the second threshold to thereby improve the RF coverage of the RF network in comparison to a prior configuration of the RF network", they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claims further recite "21… the user interface is configured to receive the updated RF network design utilizing the at least one additional candidate RF transmission site having the associated site score that is between the first threshold and the second threshold from the processor" at a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claims recite displaying, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). As to the limitations "24… activating the at least one additional candidate RF transmission site", Examiner notes that the specification is mute about "activating". Because of "identifying at least one additional candidate RF transmission site in the site qualification database" (claimed in independent claim 22), the Examiner notes that the claimed limitation is not definitive regarding how data ("in the site qualification database") improves "the RF coverage of the RF network", which is not actually built. Examiner notes that no actual build of a RF network is ever performed in the body of the claim. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of additional elements improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12, 14-19, and 21-24 are allowable over prior art of record. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
no reference taken either alone or in combination and with the prior art of record disclose
claim 1, "… an RF analysis… to generate an electronic RF network design utilizing the rating of… RF transmission sites corresponding to site scores… beyond a first threshold; identifying… area in the generated RF network design with insufficient RF coverage; identifying… additional candidate RF transmission site… having a site score that is between the first threshold and a second threshold and… in the… area… a second RF analysis to generate an updated RF network design utilizing the… additional candidate RF transmission site having a site score that is between the first threshold and the second threshold…",
claim 14, "… an RF analysis… to… generate an electronic RF network design… that… prioritizes… RF transmission sites associated with site scores that are beyond a first threshold… identify… area in the generated electronic RF network design with insufficient RF coverage… identify at least one additional candidate RF transmission site… associated with an associated site score that is between the first threshold and a second threshold and… within the… area… a second RF analysis to generate an updated RF network design utilizing the at least one additional candidate RF transmission site having the associated site score that is between the first threshold and the second threshold…",
and claim 22, "… analysis… to generate an electronic RF network design utilizing the rating of… RF transmission sites… corresponding to site scores… beyond a first threshold; identifying… area in the generated RF network design with insufficient RF coverage… identifying… additional candidate RF transmission site… in the at least one area having insufficient RF coverage and having an associated site score… between the first threshold and a second threshold… a second RF analysis to generate an updated RF network design utilizing the… additional candidate RF transmission site having the associated site score… between the first threshold and the second threshold…",
in combination with the remaining steps, elements, and features of the claimed invention. Also, there is no motivation to combine none of these references to meet these limitations. It is for these reasons that Applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, the amendment corrected all deficiencies, and those objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 1, 4th paragraph to page 2, next to last paragraph):
‘… Our claims relate to a technological solution to a technology problem, namely configuring a radio frequency (RF) network that has improved RF coverage. Our specification describes additional technical benefits (e.g., decreased cost, improved network performance) that also result from our claimed innovations. See, e.g., paragraphs 0032-33 of our published specification…
Although our claims do not expressly recite “artificial intelligence” constructs, the new guidance is helpful in understanding a Section 101 analysis of our claims, which relate to automated systems and processes for building a wireless communications network. Importantly, the new guidance recognizes that a Section 101 analysis should consider the technological improvements provided by software constructs as well as hardware, noting that “software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.” See id…
This new guidance clarifies the Office’s position that software innovations, like hardware innovations, can indeed be patentable if they provide technological improvements to a technical problem. Our claims, particularly when taken as a whole, recite a clear technological improvement to a technical problem (e.g., building a wireless network)’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
'2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment [R-10.2019] Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr... Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include…
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power”).
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because as to the additional element "build a radio frequency (RF) network" of the preambles, it is no more than intended use. The claimed invention falls short of actually building a RF network. (See MPEP 2106.05(h) supra).
As to the limitations “outputting… the updated RF network design utilizing the at least one additional candidate RF transmission site to thereby provide a configuration of the RF network having improved RF coverage in comparison to a prior configuration of the RF network”, they are considered generic displaying. As to the limitations "via a user interface of the computer system", a GUI has been found by the courts as not adding an inventive component/concept to claims to render them patentable. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above). As to the limitations “to thereby provide a configuration of the RF network having improved RF coverage in comparison to a prior configuration of the RF network", Examiner notes that no actual build of a RF network is ever performed in the body of the claim. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Applicant further argues, (see page 2, last paragraph to page 4, next to last paragraph):
‘… Even to the extent that a “processor” or “data storage” could be considered to be “generic computer components”, as alleged by the Office Action, it is not conceivable that our claims could be performed by a human. Not only does the literal language of the claim require performance of the various functions by computing machinery, but it would not be practical for a human to perform the actions of storing data and processing the data in the manner recited to arrive at an improved design for an RF network, as clearly required by our claim language. Regardless of the specific components that are recited in our claim, the processes and systems (considered as a whole) could not be performed by a human. While the Examiner asserts that our recitation of computing hardware is a mere “nominal recitation of generic computer components”, we respectfully disagree: even without this recitation, it would not be possible for a human mind to practically perform our claimed functions, including “performing an RF analysis” that considers data retrieved from a database about a plurality of candidate RF sites and coverage of a geographic area…
… First, the process was not existing prior to our invention, as acknowledged by the lack of Section 102 or 103 rejections. While we understand that Section 101 requires a separate analysis from Sections 102 and 103, the fact that the “mental process” alleged by the Office Action is not found in the prior art is indicative that the claims recite more than a mere mental process…
… our claims confer a technological improvement (a computerized solution) to the technological problem of designing an RF network. Our claims therefore invoke the same the judicial exception considered by Ex Parte Desjardins because they improve the way a computer would design an RF network…
Our specification describes specific technological benefits of a site qualification database at, for example, paragraph 0032:
PNG
media_image1.png
190
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
We therefore explained that improved RF network design results from the use of a site qualification database that can be used to analyze and rate RF transmission sites. These features are clearly present in our claims (which have been clarified by the foregoing amendments).
The use of a site qualification database and computer analysis of site qualification data is, considered as a whole, a technological solution to a technological improvement, much more than a mere mental process…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.04… II… A… 2. Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?… If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B… For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice… either at Prong Two or in Step 2B’
‘2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]… In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of…’.
‘2106.07(a)… II… After identifying the judicial exception in the rejection, identify any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and explain why they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the exception’
About "additional elements", BASCOM2, (BASCOM hereinafter) reads:
“the ‘elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements [beyond those that recite the abstract idea”.
Examiner's response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, because Applicant’s arguments conflate judicial exception(s) or abstract idea(s) (Step 2A, Prong One) with additional elements (Step 2A, Prong Two or Step 2B). Throughout the prosecution of this application, in accordance with the guidance set forth in MPEP and in several decisions, BASCOM (supra) for example, the Examiner does not conflate judicial exception(s) or abstract idea(s) (Step 2A, Prong One) with additional elements (Step 2A, Prong Two or Step 2B).
Applicant argues that the additional elements are not judicial exception(s) or abstract idea(s), but the additional elements were addressed in Examiner's rejection Step 2A, Prong Two and/or Step 2B. Applicant's arguments do not address these limitations as additional elements, as pointed out by the Examiner.
Contrary to Applicant's argument (underline emphasis added), "Our specification describes specific technological benefits of a site qualification database at, for example, paragraph 0032… this process can reduce the costs of building such networks", the additional element "build a radio frequency (RF) network" of the preambles is no more than intended use, because no actual build of a RF network is ever performed in the body of the claim. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above). The claimed invention falls short of actually building a RF network. (See MPEP 2106.05(h) supra).
Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements which integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 7:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http: //www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https: //patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https: //www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https: //www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
2 BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2015-1763 (June 27, 2016)